Most people in southern Sudan depend on livestock for their food and income. Livestock is also important for social customs and status. However, this dependence on livestock makes people vulnerable to animal diseases and poor health. How can aid programmes reduce this vulnerability?

In the early 1990’s, cattle in war-affected areas of southern Sudan were decimated by rinderpest disease. Aid programmes that focused on short-term emergency relief exacerbated this problem and conflict in the area reduced their effectiveness. Research from Tufts University, USA, examines a different approach to livestock health management in southern Sudan.

A combination of different relief programmes in the region since then has been more effective. Experiences from these programmes have helped to establish a large-scale community-based animal health worker (CAHW) system. This has led to significant improvements in rindepest eradication. The research shows:

• The programmes created a better understanding of people’s livelihoods. This focused on local knowledge and skills of livestock management, including local institutions such as cattle camps.
• The programmes were run by experts with good interpersonal skills. These people were able to work with United Nations (UN) agencies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and donors to develop effective livestock health policies and guidelines, focussing on best-practice design and implementation of the CAHW system, with supervision by higher-level veterinary staff.
• The field experience of senior programme staff was important, particularly their ability to report what is actually happening in livestock farming communities into decision-making forums.

Conventional views of relief programmes see poor people as passive recipients of aid programmes that are designed and delivered by outside agencies. In contrast, the programmes used in Sudan recognised the capacity of people to analyse their own situations and work with outsiders to design, implement and evaluate livestock management interventions.

The CAHW system has institutionalised communication systems between NGOs and Sudanese partner organisations, for example by agreeing consistent reporting requirements. However, although community-level decision-making and control of resources are critical aspects of development relief programmes, livestock management also depends on appropriate international policies. The research identifies significant weaknesses in the technical capacity of some international development agencies, as well as limitations in communication networks. 

To overcome these limitations, the research recommends:

• Strengthening the capacity of UN agencies and NGOs to use livelihoods approaches to livestock programming in complex emergencies.
• Far greater use of participatory impact assessment to guide livestock policy development and revision.
• The development of international standards and best-practice guidelines for livestock interventions in complex emergencies.

Source(s):
‘Policies, Practice and Participation in Complex Emergencies: The Case of Livestock Interventions in South Sudan: A case study for the Agriculture and Development Economics Division of the Food and Agriculture Organization’, Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, by Andy Catley, Tim Leyland and Suzan Bishop, March 2005 Full document.

Funded by: Agriculture and Development Economics Division of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations

id21 Research Highlight: 31 March 2006

Further Information:
Andy Catley
Feinstein International Center
Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy
Tufts University
PO Box 1078
Addis Ababa
Ethiopia

Tel: +251 11 663 2012
Contact the contributor: andy.catley@bigfoot.com

Tufts University, USA

Other related links:
'Healthier livestock, wealthier people: the impact of livestock disease on poverty reduction'

'Meeting the different needs of livestock farmers in Tanzania'

'Privatising common land in Botswana'

DFID Animal Health Programme

The Wellcome Trust - funding research to improve human and animal health

Institute for Animal Health